As companies expand internationally, the legal risks of cross-border employment are growing faster than many employers realize. The Bhatti case offers a wake-up call: expanding globally without aligning employment practices with legal realities can lead to legal exposure.
Global expansion is no longer a strategic ambition; it's a business imperative. But while companies rush to enter new markets, many overlook a crucial component: how to manage employment relationships across borders in a legally compliant way.
The risks of getting it wrong are significant, as highlighted by the UK Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision in Cable News International Inc. v. Saima Bhatti. The case underscores a critical truth: the location of the work is less important than where the employee remains legally anchored.
Employment tribunals worldwide are increasingly willing to assert jurisdiction based on the substance of the employment relationship rather than the terms of the contract. For global employers, this means that liability doesn't end at the border.
CNN v Bhatti: Employment Case Summary
Saima Bhatti, a British journalist employed by CNN, had relocated to Abu Dhabi but remained functionally tied to CNN's UK operation. She was paid from the UK, managed by UK-based senior staff and alleged that discriminatory conduct occurred both in the UK and abroad. After being dismissed, she filed claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination before a UK Employment Tribunal.
CNN contested the tribunal's jurisdiction, pointing to Bhatti's physical location in Abu Dhabi and her U.S.-law-governed contract. The tribunal rejected this argument, finding that it had jurisdiction because CNN maintained substantial operational control from the UK, including performance management and the decision to terminate her. These connections outweighed both her work location and the governing law clause.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the decision, stating that a “sufficiently strong connection” to the UK is enough to trigger jurisdiction, regardless of foreign work or contract terms, and classified Bhatti as a “peripatetic” worker, or a worker who moves from place to place.
Global Echoes: Jurisdictional Reach Beyond the UK
Bhatti is just one example of a broader trend. In Ravat v. Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd [2012] UKSC 1, the UK Supreme Court allowed a UK employee working in Libya to bring an unfair dismissal claim, noting his ongoing integration with UK operations. In Jeffrey v. British Council [2018] EWCA Civ 2253, a Bangladesh-based employee established UK jurisdiction based on strong ties to the employer's UK headquarters.
Other jurisdictions are following suit. In Dundee Precious Metals Inc. v. Marsland (2011), the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed a Canadian employee working abroad to bring a claim under Ontario employment law, highlighting that the employer's significant control from Canada and the strong employment ties to Canada justified the court's jurisdiction.
Similarly, in Gautam Parimoo v Lake Resources N.L. [2023] FWC 2543, the Australian Fair Work Commission held that a U.S. citizen working remotely from Argentina for an Australian company could bring a claim under the Fair Work Act. The Commission found that the employment contract was formed in Australia, and the employee was sufficiently integrated into the employer's Australian operations to be considered “Australian-based” for legal purposes.
The message is consistent: courts are looking beyond geography and contracts to the real nature of the employment relationship. If the employer's influence from the home country remains strong, courts may assert jurisdiction regardless of where the employee sits.
Implications for U.S. Employers
For U.S.-based multinationals, especially those managing international teams from American headquarters or employing U.S. citizens abroad, the Bhatti decision serves as a warning. Employees may have parallel protections under U.S. laws such as Title VII, ADA or ADEA, as well as under foreign laws, depending on how integrated the role remains with the home country.
Contractual clauses and foreign work locations alone will not shield employers from liability if the facts show the employee remains connected to a home-country entity.
Practical Takeaways: Mitigating Global Risk
As remote work and international assignments become permanent features of the workplace, employers have to evolve their legal risk strategies. The EAT's ruling in Bhatti makes it clear that jurisdiction is no longer strictly determined by location or contract terms. Employers with mobile or international teams, or those looking to expand globally should take the following steps:
Review expatriate and international roles: Determine whether roles marketed as “foreign” are actually managed from the home country.
Use local entities when possible: Where employees relocate for extended periods, consider localizing the employment relationship directly through a local entity in the country of work, or through an Employer of Record in the relevant country.
Train supervisors and HR teams: Ensure that decision-makers understand the legal implications of managing foreign employees from headquarters.
Audit payroll and benefits systems: paying foreign employees from the home jurisdiction may serve as a jurisdictional anchor, increasing exposure.
The Reality of Employment Relationships, Contracts, and Jurisdictions
Global expansion brings opportunity, but it is not without risk. As CNN v Bhatti makes clear, tribunals are no longer confined by geography or contracts.
They are looking at the reality of employment relationships, and if those relationships remain anchored in the home country, legal liability may follow. Businesses pursuing cross-border growth without aligning their employment structures and practices do so at their own peril.
This article was originally published on Law.com.